|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 8:49:16 GMT -5
Hi all, Pretty funny. Sounds like there some kind of witch hunt going on, which, if true, the search is still outward into the world of appearances. Ironic, Huh? Here's a hint. If it pertains to appearances, it's probabilistic, as in not certain, not 100% bonafide Truth. The truth that can be spoken is not Truth. Kinda like the Zen koan thingy stuff where in answer to a question, with the first word out of the chella's mouth, the ZM smacks the crap out of 'em. Unless, unless, unless...The pointing is at somenothing eternally immediate, prior to any context. ...unless you've got a certificate of enlightenment, right?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 9:07:40 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, though I'm not sure about the last couple of paragraphs. There is a similarity to my explanation, in that...in essence....you are saying that the knowing of one's own nature combined with the not-knowing of another's nature, is the SVP position. Which it is. However, I very much doubt your explanation would be accepted, because they think the 'knowing/not-knowing' position they are taking, is prior to the person. And that's why I have said that it's a context mix i.e they THINK they are taking an impersonal position prior to the SVP, when really, it is just personal position (or the SVP). Just wanted to add this: I used to talk to Figgles about personal vs. impersonal several years ago and she always insisted that the impersonal is really just a more expansive view in comparison to the personal view while I insisted that it takes a quantum leap in order to get from personal to impersonal. So yeah, we are making the same point here.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 9:17:15 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I am also saying let's give up this argument about other individual is real or not. This argument is initiated by me in this forum but I no longer has any interest to continue this argument. You are correct let's argue something important. That's an interesting turn of events. Maybe we should finally close this thread? Show of hands, please. Who is in favor of closing this thread? Yes, I know I can't know appearing people are real or not. And I also know why you three are disagreeing with me and I also know why I can never convince you. So I decided to stop this argument.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 9:29:11 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, though I'm not sure about the last couple of paragraphs. There is a similarity to my explanation, in that...in essence....you are saying that the knowing of one's own nature combined with the not-knowing of another's nature, is the SVP position. Which it is. However, I very much doubt your explanation would be accepted, because they think the 'knowing/not-knowing' position they are taking, is prior to the person. And that's why I have said that it's a context mix i.e they THINK they are taking an impersonal position prior to the SVP, when really, it is just personal position (or the SVP). Just wanted to add this: I used to talk to Figgles about personal vs. impersonal several years ago and she always insisted that the impersonal is really just a more expansive view in comparison to the personal view while I insisted that it takes a quantum leap in order to get from personal to impersonal. So yeah, we are making the same point here. Okag, yes, then expansive view here would be 'the world is appearing in I' (but I don't know if the world is appearing in 'you'). The quantum leap 'abandons' (or 'transcends') the duality of I-you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 9:30:54 GMT -5
That's an interesting turn of events. Maybe we should finally close this thread? Show of hands, please. Who is in favor of closing this thread? Yes, I know I can't know appearing people are real or not. And I also know why you three are disagreeing with me and I also know why I can never convince you. So I decided to stop this argument. Can you explain to me why 'I am the only perceiver' is an impossibility for me please? I have explained it many times, but I am curious how closely you can explain it back to me. I can explain why it is possible to you (I have done many times).
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 9:34:03 GMT -5
Yes, I know I can't know appearing people are real or not. And I also know why you three are disagreeing with me and I also know why I can never convince you. So I decided to stop this argument. Can you explain to me why 'I am the only perceiver' is an impossibility for me please? I have explained it many times, but I am curious how closely you can explain it back to me. I can explain why it is possible to you (I have done many times). Not interested.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 9:37:31 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, though I'm not sure about the last couple of paragraphs. There is a similarity to my explanation, in that...in essence....you are saying that the knowing of one's own nature combined with the not-knowing of another's nature, is the SVP position. Which it is. However, I very much doubt your explanation would be accepted, because they think the 'knowing/not-knowing' position they are taking, is prior to the person. And that's why I have said that it's a context mix i.e they THINK they are taking an impersonal position prior to the SVP, when really, it is just personal position (or the SVP). Well, no one likes to be convinced by someone else that s/he is actually missing a key realization and therefore has come only half circle, right? So never mind that. I'm more interested in talking about it in general terms anyway. What I've been getting at is what I wrote in my reply to Lolly. Knowing your own nature naturally means knowing the nature of everything else. That's the very definition of SR. And the SVP cannot know its own nature in that sense. The best the SVP can come up with is an idea about it's own nature. And this is a very interesting topic. How far can the SVP go? What are the limits of understanding? If you do the "Who am I?" meditation Ramana suggested, and if you do it thoroughly, it will inevitably end in silence. It will end in uncertainty re: your identity. Which will make it abundantly clear that your identity so far has only been an idea construct. You don't have to be SR in order to see that. That was my point to Lolly. The SVP can already see thru it within its own limitations. The SVP just can't end it. And as already mentioned, the only absolute certainty the SVP has is its own existence. And when you keep in mind that the SVP can't do without identity poker, if you combine what I have just said, what the SVP will eventually come up with is something like "I am existence itself" (or Beingness or Isness or Consciousness or Awareness etc.). And that's what the SR will certainly agree with. And this I think is where the SVP reaches its limit. That's how far the identity poker can potentially go. So as long as we keep talking on such a very abstract level, the SVP and the SR can agree on almost everything. Where you will see the differences in understanding though is on the topic about 'others'. That's why this is such a hot topic. The SR doesn't even think in terms of others or appearances. And the SVP cannot think any other than in terms of others and appearances. So that's where the clash of perspectives naturally has to happen every time. Now, the SR can adopt the perspective of the SVP easily and understand the logic of it within the context of the SVP and even speak from that context, but the SVP cannot adopt the perspective of the SR and so cannot speak from that context. You just can't fake this. This has always been blatantly obvious when people talk about oneness and argue for separation at the same time in the same sentence all the time. Long story short: you can get very far in understanding just by philosophical means if you do it thoroughly, you can even get so far that most of the time your understanding seems indistinguishable from the SR. And I think that happens a lot, especially in non-duality circles and with folks who are able to handle complex concepts. But there are certain topics where the actual understanding will be revealed one way or another, where you will clearly see who actually has a reference for what it means to have passed thru the gateless gate and who hasn't. Yes to all that. In regard to the highlighted bit...it's why I have said that all is required is for the 'one that is aware/conscious' to realize that this awareness/conscious is not actually finite. Then the question of 'others that are aware/conscious' is gone. And yes, the SVP can reach a point of 'I am existence/beingness etc', and because this is 'non-conceptually known', it can seem more profound that it is. In one way it IS profound, but if there are any questions about the nature of 'another', then it's not profound enough. It's still identity poker. It's still philosophy, but it doesn't seem like it is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 9:39:12 GMT -5
Can you explain to me why 'I am the only perceiver' is an impossibility for me please? I have explained it many times, but I am curious how closely you can explain it back to me. I can explain why it is possible to you (I have done many times). Not interested. I'm not challenging your perspective, I'm simply asking if you can tell me why it is impossible to me. Given that we have been talking for 2/3 years about it, I am curious as to what extent you have been listening to my understandings.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 10:01:11 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I am also saying let's give up this argument about other individual is real or not. This argument is initiated by me in this forum but I no longer has any interest to continue this argument. You are correct let's argue something important. That's an interesting turn of events. Maybe we should finally close this thread? Show of hands, please. Who is in favor of closing this thread? For the record, I won't be quibbling if the movement is to close this thread. I am only repeating myself on the subject of spiritual-solipsism at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 10:05:43 GMT -5
That's an interesting turn of events. Maybe we should finally close this thread? Show of hands, please. Who is in favor of closing this thread? For the record, I won't be quibbling if the movement is to close this thread. I am only repeating myself on the subject of spiritual-solipsism at this point. But I know how difficult it is for you
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 10:10:14 GMT -5
For the record, I won't be quibbling if the movement is to close this thread. I am only repeating myself on the subject of spiritual-solipsism at this point. But I know how difficult it is for you It's quite easy for me to avoid talking to you about it, because you haven't realized consciousness/awareness to be 'not-finite', and so it is reasonable that you would consider 'only one perceiver' to be possible. My expectation of Enigma is different, and so it has been less easy to avoid the conversation. You consider it possible that you are the sole personal creator of gravity, birds flying, alligators swimming - all the apparent structures and apparent parameters of experience. I wouldn't expect Enigma to consider it possible that he is the sole personal creator of that, given the realizations he has spoken of.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 10:16:38 GMT -5
But I know how difficult it is for you It's quite easy for me to avoid talking to you about it, because you haven't realized consciousness/awareness to be 'not-finite', and so it is reasonable that you would consider 'only one perceiver' to be possible. My expectation of Enigma is different, and so it has been less easy to avoid the conversation. Enigma's God has fallen into the dream so Enigma sees the possibility for you to see the truth but My God hasn't fallen into the dream so I don't see the possibility for you and also I see how beautiful deliberate act of God is this!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 3, 2018 12:42:55 GMT -5
It depends upon what you mean by CC. About fifteen minutes elapsed while not knowing what was apprehending the Infinite. About two and a half days elapsed before the unity consciousness and sense of three-dimensional aliveness shifted back to a flat dualistic perception with a "me" at the center of it. The most significant realization was seeing through the illusions of thingness, locality, time, and space. So it starts at one point in time and end in another point of time(After 15 mins), yes? If so, that's not realization, that's experience. Don't call CC as realization, say that as experience, may that's mysterious experience you have ever had but that's an experience. I don't suspect your SR as experience, that's obviously realization but CC is experience. I began writing a long response to this post, but then decided that it wasn't worth the effort to think that much. I'm always amused by people who reach conclusions about things for which they have no reference. I leave you with these accounts by people who do have a reference for what the word "kensho" or "CC" points to: 1. All at once his body disappeared, and he was in infinite space. He remained in that state for some time. When he returned to his body, he understood. The rocks, the river, everything he could see, everything he could hear, all this was his true self. 2. A quotation I had read flashed into my consciousness. I came to realize clearly that Mind is no other than mountains, rivers, and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars. Then all at once I was struck as though by lightning, and the next instant heaven and earth crumbled and disappeared. I began laughing riotously and said, "There's no reasoning here at all." I continued to laugh until my wife covered my mouth with her hand and asked, "What's the matter with you?" I kept laughing and said, "I've come to enlightenment! The Buddha and the patriarchs haven't deceived me." 3. All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped in a flame-colored cloud. The next, he knew that the light was within himself. Directly afterwards came upon him an intellectual illumination impossible to describe. Among other things he did not come to believe, he saw and knew that the cosmos is not dead matter but a living presence. 4. One day I wiped out all the notions from my mind. I gave up all desire. I discarded all the words which I thought and stayed in quietude. I felt a little strange, as if I were being carried into something, or as if i were touching some power unknown to me. I had been near it before, but each time I had shaken my head and run away from it. This time I decided not to run away and....Zttt---I entered. I lost the boundary of my physical body. I had my skin, of course, but my physical body extended to the corners of the world. I felt I was standing in the center of the cosmos. I spoke, but my words had lost their meaning. I saw people coming towards me, but all of them were myself. I had never known this world. I had believed that I was created, but now I had to change my opinion; I had never been created. I was the cosmos. I went to my teacher. He looked at me and said, Tell me about your new experience of entering the transcendental world." If i spoke, I would return to the old world, so i remained silent and looked at his face. He smiled at me. He also did not say a word. I entered the transcendental world in my twenties, and I never left it. If you enter my world, your view becomes entirely different. Then you understand why people build churches and sing hymns and do strange things. Yes, there is another world. Everyone is free to think whatever they wish.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 3, 2018 13:54:41 GMT -5
That's an interesting turn of events. Maybe we should finally close this thread? Show of hands, please. Who is in favor of closing this thread? Yes, I know I can't know appearing people are real or not. And I also know why you three are disagreeing with me and I also know why I can never convince you. So I decided to stop this argument. Gopal, I think you are missing the boat on this, your position is in a very real sense just an abstraction (although ultimately accurate). The point is you don't live your life in the manner of your view. You live daily life, and forum life AS IF other people exist, AS IF all things you encounter, exist.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 14:39:48 GMT -5
If thought is no more then there is no 'I' there is however what you are whether there is a thought of I or not . So what I am is not the thought.
/
There is what you are of the mind and beyond . If there is a thought of 'I' then there is awareness of I AM of the mind . If there is no awareness / thought of I AM then there is what you are without that thought that is not of the mind .
|
|